Now that was a funny post;-)

Ahh, America, the home of the free!
You can kill your ex-wife and her new boyfriend, but God forbid that you show a boobie!

Didn't you hear, OJ found the killers.

Pal's question is an interesting one. It would be nice if the US was a little more comfortable with nudity but often it isn't the nudity that is objectionable, but the context. The Janet Jackson thing (depicting a forced disrobing in a sexual context) cannot be compared with sunseekers and volleyball players. In the end (hee hee), the US is sex obsessed, but prefers not to have it all hanging out all the time. Keeping some things someone mysterious is usually more erotic than full frontal...
St.Cirq.: When on a nude beach, be careful when you bat your eyes and how you eye the bats.... ;)

Generalising about Americans, Europeans or anyone else is pointless and misleading. US history is replete with outbreaks of hair-raising licentiousness as well as bizarre prudery, the prudery seemingly more evident at the public or official level than in (most?) other Western societies. To outsiders America is a land of puzzling extremes, but you could have said the same of Victorian England. Nobody has a monopoly on public hypocrisy, but it's fair to say that America has an unusual level of public religiosity. It's hard to imagine any Western European, or other English-speaking society, in which political candidates would feel endangered if they didn't make a show of attending church services.

1. This is a little like asking, are we here or they there?

2. The comment re: look for the dollar is right on the money. (Sorry. heh.)

Remember that we (US) have become a nation defined by special-interest-dominated media. We have a vociferous segment of the population, sophisticated in manipulation of public opinion and perspective, and dedicated to their one or two agendas so thoroughly that those of us not obsessed by things like obscenity are completely outshouted. We don't care. They do.

Just as it's important for the rest of the world to understand that the "blue-state" voters feel passionately that the election came out very wrong, even though they now are almost invisible in the media, it's probably worth remembering that it's the people whose define their lives by such issues who put energy and money into trying to contort other's values in synch with theirs.

I'd guess the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans don't give a flying royal kazoo about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe."

A remaining question: who is more obsessed with nudity? The Americans who take deliberations about nude beaches to town councils, or the Germans are determined to find occasions to take off clothing publicly? ;-) One person's naturist is another person's exhibitionist, no?

Interesting commentary, soccr, in a thread which is otherwise unfolding in a typcial fodors fashion..the euro-wannabees drawing the out the US neo-cons. some good humor tho.

StCirq: Sorry, but that was way TMI for me.

No, I don't think the word "lose" in the topic is a typo. It means "to fail to use" by Webster.

Now, what is it Europe failing to use? Prudism? Or Puritanism?

And don't foreget --

When American advertisers use sex (e.g., half-naked women) to sell products, it is because America has a cheap and trashy obsession with sex.

When European advertisers use sex (e.g., naked women) to sell products, it is because Europeans have a healthy and enlightened outlook toward sex.

Foreget, forget, what's the difference?

Pres Mitterand had a mistress when he was in office and it was common knowledge and nobody seemed to care, or when his 'lost' daughter showed up at his funeral. Chirac can loot the Ville de Paris' treasury when he was Mayor of Paris and who seems to care. Differing criterias of repulsion in societies. Mitterand doesn't upset me so much though i think if you're in a marriage then that's awful, but, like Clinton, i'd separate his ability to govern from personal morality, who am i to say having a mistress is wrong, to me it is but to others so what? Now graft and corruption in a public office-holder to me is totally unacceptable and this is one area where i think we Americans have the upper morality hand. Not that we don't have graft in our politicans ut that when they are exposed, they often suffer the consequences (unless it's Tom DeLay!) Even the hint of inpropriety can be disastrous - the last-minute expose of W's drunken driving conviction years ago nearly cost him the 2000 election and never proved charges by Swift Boat Vets probably did cost Kerry the election.

What does this have to do with travel???

Travel to me means more than just seeing a string of individual sights but is the chance to experience different cultures and their values, this is the richness of traveling, not how many museums, etc. you've seen.

oh, sorry, how did I miss that??? stupid me.... I'll never do that again...

go on, let's talk more about our leaders morality because that's important to my decisions where I travel....

PalQ -- Huh? I hope no one will take the bait that you are dishing out.

The beauty of this forum is that you don't have to read any post that isn't interesting to you. So why are you? If you don't like it, move on. In all due respect, really.

Oh brother. Europe is the way it is, and the US is the way IT is, even if it does seem a bit goofy sometimes. Why does one have to be regarded as "too" anything? They're just different.
You wouldn't get as much enjoyment out of travel and therefore experiencing "different cultures and their values" if they were the same, would you?

IMHO it is the true sinners (those full of hate and greed) who try to convince the easily confused that morality is primarily based on sexuality - rather than true ethical issues (fairness, honesty and personal/corporate responsability towards others).

The beauty of this forum is the fact that it's about <b>TRAVEL</b>, not politics.

I really didn't have a problem with your original post. Somewhat of a weak link to travel, but it could be perceived as a valid question about different cultures and attitudes.

Once you brought up the actions of different leaders, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time seeing that as a valid travel question. This subject was disected, analyzed, discussed on every possible public media about a million times, including here, so a quick search would show you this is pointless. If you do travel, you know the differences so the only reason I see in your follow up post is to start some goofy &quot;us against them&quot; discussion that will not amount to anything and in reality has nothing to do with travel.

C'aillez! I appreciate your view as i've often thought the same about other posts.